From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD70C4724C for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 00:04:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA15F208E4 for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 00:04:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="rjnpwkGm" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BA15F208E4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 27546900003; Thu, 7 May 2020 20:04:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2271D900002; Thu, 7 May 2020 20:04:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 13B24900003; Thu, 7 May 2020 20:04:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0241.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.241]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFFAC900002 for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 20:04:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin17.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5587180AD811 for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 00:04:53 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76791606066.17.arch74_2aae9ee8a0534 X-HE-Tag: arch74_2aae9ee8a0534 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2839 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 00:04:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-231-172-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.172.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B940E2082E; Fri, 8 May 2020 00:04:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1588896292; bh=Ge3nz8WZOJFqzpXNiv8nhoHil6SjiIANRuschyeYJ1I=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=rjnpwkGmtJKw/4mwFZHZOgAKysf0TfYIOxoqLbOdRr0lNDtGxLdWBH+W5B+mjNczy hexKcPq4DCCPhnsl/bonhuZdi7xChtTfSjJuuGJRZxTYWiAimDTLfu+a6alnuxYhvw +B9mhA6pqBO41LUKlJtfY88v6rq+xxISTZDx+NBc= Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 17:04:48 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Walter Wu Cc: Bart Van Assche , Matthias Brugger , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Josh Poimboeuf , , , , , wsd_upstream Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] stacktrace: cleanup inconsistent variable type Message-Id: <20200507170448.661b1ef6cf8d870bb19e8cc6@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1588731504.7745.3.camel@mtksdccf07> References: <20200421013511.5960-1-walter-zh.wu@mediatek.com> <1588731504.7745.3.camel@mtksdccf07> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 6 May 2020 10:18:24 +0800 Walter Wu wrote: > On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 18:21 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On 4/20/20 6:35 PM, Walter Wu wrote: > > > Modify the variable type of 'skip' member of struct stack_trace. > > > In theory, the 'skip' variable type should be unsigned int. > > > There are two reasons: > > > - The 'skip' only has two situation, 1)Positive value, 2)Zero > > > - The 'skip' of struct stack_trace has inconsistent type with struct > > > stack_trace_data, it makes a bit confusion in the relationship between > > > struct stack_trace and stack_trace_data. > > > > Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche > > Hi Andrew, > > Would you know why not to be picked up this patch yet? > Do I miss somethings? I'd decided to pass on this because it's so minor. We inappropriately use signed types in soooo many places :(